TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Timber Merchant Wins Tax Case: Inadvertent E-Way Bill Error Does Not Constitute Intentional Tax Evasion</h1> <h3>Mriganka Sarkar Versus Union of India & Ors.</h3> HC ruled in favor of petitioner, a timber merchant, finding no intentional tax evasion despite e-Way Bill address discrepancy. The court mandated refund ... Rejection of refund of the tax paid for the second time and penalty - address from where the timber was dispatched was inadvertently mentioned in the e-Way Bill - HELD THAT:- Due to an unintentional error at the time of generating the e-Way Bill, the address from where the goods were dispatched was wrongly mentioned and accordingly, the goods were rightly confiscated by the respondent authorities. It was not for the respondents to take a decision as to whether the petitioner was intentionally trying to evade tax or not. As there was discrepancy in the document from where the goods were dispatched, the authorities intercepted and confiscated the same. The petitioner was directed to pay the tax as well as penalty - Thereafter it appears that a fresh e-Way Bill was generated immediately after interception. The description of the goods in the second e-Way Bill remains the same. It is only that the place of dispatch was rectified. The petitioner had to pay tax for the second time and penalty for not carrying the proper Way Bill at the very first instance. From the conduct of the petitioner it does not appear that there was an intention to evade tax. The respondent authorities ought not to collect tax for second time in respect of the self-same goods that were transported by the petitioner. Law doesn’t require payment of tax to be made more than once in respect of the self same goods. The petitioner is entitled to the refund as prayed for. The writ petition is disposed of. Issues:Refund of tax paid for the second time and penalty amount rejected by Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority.Analysis:The petitioner, a timber merchant, transported goods with an e-Way Bill showing an incorrect dispatch address, leading to interception, penalty, and confiscation of goods. A subsequent corrected e-Way Bill was generated, but the petitioner was still required to pay tax and penalty again. The petitioner sought a refund, arguing against double taxation for the same goods. The respondents contended that the petitioner's responsibility for e-Way Bill accuracy made him liable for penalties. However, a previous court order highlighted the need for willful tax evasion for penalties to apply.The Court found that the petitioner's initial tax payment was correct, and the interception was due to an inadvertent error in the e-Way Bill. Despite the subsequent corrected Bill, the goods' description remained the same. The Court referenced a previous case where intentional tax evasion was a prerequisite for penalties. It concluded that the petitioner did not intend to evade tax, and double taxation for the same goods was unjustified. Therefore, the Adjudicating and Appellate Authority's orders were set aside.The Directorate of Commercial Taxes, Government of West Bengal, was directed to refund the tax paid for the second time and the penalty within four months. The Court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing the need for prompt refund processing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
